David Baker

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal from a decision dismissing a motion for partial summary judgment.

The appellant had sought partial summary judgment using issue estoppel offensively, based on findings from a prior Federal Court decision quashing a security certificate against him.

The Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of the summary judgment motion was a final order, as it finally determined the question of issue estoppel and deprived the appellant of a substantive right.

The motion to quash the appeal was dismissed.

Three appellants appealed decisions of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying payment for out-of-country medical treatment because they did not obtain prior written approval from the General Manager of OHIP.

The Divisional Court held that while the Health Insurance Act and regulations do not expressly confer discretion to grant retroactive prior approval, such authority is necessarily implied in urgent circumstances where prior approval cannot be obtained.

The Court rejected arguments based on legitimate expectations, promissory estoppel, limitation periods against minors, and sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

Two of the appeals were allowed and remitted to the Board to determine if urgent circumstances existed, while the third was dismissed.

The appellants, representing children with autism and their families, appealed a motion judge's decision striking several causes of action from their proposed class proceeding against Ontario and several school boards.

The claims challenged the provision of autism and education services, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

It struck the age-based discrimination claim without leave to amend, citing stare decisis from the Wynberg decision.

The disability discrimination claim and the claim for Charter damages were struck with leave to amend due to a lack of precision in the pleadings.

The court also granted leave to amend the negligence claim against the school boards regarding operational aspects of the programs, but otherwise dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities filed a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency regarding VIA Rail's purchase of 139 Renaissance rail cars that were inaccessible to personal wheelchairs.

The Agency ordered VIA Rail to modify 30 of the cars to accommodate personal wheelchairs, finding that the inaccessible design constituted an undue obstacle.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the Agency's decision as patently unreasonable.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the Agency's decision, holding that the Agency reasonably applied human rights principles, including the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship, within its statutory mandate under the Canada Transportation Act.